Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Silly question. This is for anybody really, regardless as to which side of the issue you come down on. Please show me where a person has a constitutional right to marriage, or a civil union, for that matter. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm seriously curious.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment.

Originally posted by jerseydevi1:

Quote:

Originally posted by Digityzed:
[b]If you think the "if it feels good do it" mantra is what homosexuals live their lives by, then you need to get to know a homosexual person a little better before you judge.

I actually knew quite a few gays here that my wife used to work with, and actually, thier mantra was just that. We used to talk to them and hang out with them before we realized we had a moral dilemma with thier lifestyle, and promiscuity, and how we could justify it in our hearts and minds when we were trying to teach our children differently. So, you see, my opinion comes from my experience with the gay people that I have met and gotten to know.[/b]

Originally posted by Digityzed:

Quote:

Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]

Quote:

Originally posted by Digityzed:
[b]If you think the "if it feels good do it" mantra is what homosexuals live their lives by, then you need to get to know a homosexual person a little better before you judge.

I actually knew quite a few gays here that my wife used to work with, and actually, thier mantra was just that. We used to talk to them and hang out with them before we realized we had a moral dilemma with thier lifestyle, and promiscuity, and how we could justify it in our hearts and minds when we were trying to teach our children differently. So, you see, my opinion comes from my experience with the gay people that I have met and gotten to know.[/b]

If that's been your experience, and you're grouping an entire group of people in with that, that's pretty sad, but there's not much I can do about it. Just know that homosexuals aren't the exclusive group to that mantra.

What if one of your children comes out to you later in life? I hope you'll support them, and not dump them to the wayside as you did your friends.[/b]

Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
As to the point of my children, I love them with all of my being, and would never turn them out for any reason. My family the reason I go to work every day, and the reason I wake up in the morning.

While there's no mention of the right to marry in the constitution, the government is offering that right to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. They key is whether that is justified - and I think that there is no legit reason, so not extending the same rights to homosexual couiples is an equal protection violation.

Originally posted by 2001frontier:

Quote:

While there's no mention of the right to marry in the constitution, the government is offering that right to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. They key is whether that is justified - and I think that there is no legit reason, so not extending the same rights to homosexual couiples is an equal protection violation.

Would you say the same thing for those that want to have more than two people in a marriage? How about consenting siblings that want to marry?

Originally posted by Digityzed:

Quote:

Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]As to the point of my children, I love them with all of my being, and would never turn them out for any reason. My family the reason I go to work every day, and the reason I wake up in the morning.

As much as we (obviously) don't see eye-to-eye on many things, I admire this statement.

Who's got a tissue? [/b]

Originally posted by pnwbeers:

Quote:

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]

Quote:

While there's no mention of the right to marry in the constitution, the government is offering that right to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. They key is whether that is justified - and I think that there is no legit reason, so not extending the same rights to homosexual couiples is an equal protection violation.

Would you say the same thing for those that want to have more than two people in a marriage? How about consenting siblings that want to marry?

A slippery slope argument? You and Thomas think alike... :rolleyes: Do you actually find such arguments compelling?

And I thought you weren't against same-sex marriage...is the truth slipping out?

In any event, the answer to your question lies in the text I quoted above.[/b]

Originally posted by SuperBlackXterra:
Yes its hard, but who's life isn't?

Originally posted by WilMac1023:

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperBlackXterra:
[b]Yes its hard, but who's life isn't?

This guy's:
[/b]

Originally posted by porsche996:

Quote:

Originally posted by WilMac1023:
[b]

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperBlackXterra:
[b]Yes its hard, but who's life isn't?

This guy's:
[/b]

Right... I'm sure it's not stressful or hard at all to be a President....

Maybe in your own little mind, wilmac... Gotta' be easy to rule in that lala land; doesn't appear to be anything there.[/b]